Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

Is milking Ron Paul supporters for a multi level marketing scam where milk shake powder and vitamin packs sell for 3x the price of a health food store "trustworthy"?

Why did Ron Paul's internet geniuses let the domain lapse in the first place? They need to pay a price for that.

Free Market is only Free and Trustworthy when Doug Wead or Israel Anderson try it, but when the RonPaul.com people do it it's not free and trustworthy. Got it.

There's a reason Wead laughs so much.

The health insurance mandate in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler at The Heritage Foundation in a publication titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans". This was also the model for Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts. Source

Israel is wrong...he is saying that the Campaign For Liberty staff let RonPaul.com lapse....Ron Paul has never owned RonPaul.com so the Campaign For Liberty staff never let it lapse...The incompetent Campaign For Liberty staff DID let RonPaul.ORG expire, not RonPaul.COM.

Israel is wrong...he is saying that the Campaign For Liberty staff let RonPaul.com lapse....Ron Paul has never owned RonPaul.com so the Campaign For Liberty staff never let it lapse...The incompetent Campaign For Liberty staff DID let RonPaul.ORG expire, not RonPaul.COM.

I figure it would be something like that. The moment he stated his name I decided there was no sense in watching it because I don't trust him at all.

Good god people. The site is worth what its worth. If Ron Paul wants the dang thing buy it and buy it at market price. You can't piss and moan about freemarkets all day long and then think for one minute that the guy who owns it shouldn't get the market price.

Don't like it buy another #$@!$$%@#$%!#$$@!#$%$^%$^%$!@#$!#$!#@$^%@#^&^*^&*^ %^% website.

If these aren't examples of a "free market" please explain your understanding of the term and why domains are excluded.

Sedo - The world's leading domain marketplaceAfternic boasts over 3 million domain names available for purchase on their aftermarket platform. Bido is a 1 a day, domain name auction serviceDomainMonkey is a domain auction and parking website NameJet allows its customers to backorder a domain name and set a price up to which they are willing to go

The health insurance mandate in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler at The Heritage Foundation in a publication titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans". This was also the model for Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts. Source

Is milking Ron Paul supporters for a multi level marketing scam where milk shake powder and vitamin packs sell for 3x the price of a health food store "trustworthy"?

Why did Ron Paul's internet geniuses let the domain lapse in the first place? They need to pay a price for that.

Free Market is only Free and Trustworthy when Doug Wead or Israel Anderson try it, but when the RonPaul.com people do it it's not free and trustworthy. Got it.

There's a reason Wead laughs so much.

Okay. I missed the milk shake powder vitamin pack thingy. But I do plan to get into some kind of network marketing myself. The biggest deficiency of this movement is that it's all been about "Send moneybomb donations to the campaign even if you're barely getting by financially". As a group we need to look at ways to help each other become financially independent. Seriously, I've seen somebody post a request for emergency food aid! I ain't mad at the person, but if all we're about is gathering money for some campaign staff to waste spend, what good is that?

Alright, enough soapboxing. As to your point about the free market, I agree. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I don't know the full story behind RonPaul.com per se, but people surrounding Ron Paul making 6 figure salaries have been woefully negligent in securing domain names.

You might as well use it yourself or give it to someone that can do something with it because I highly doubt Ron cares about it. He seems to think like many that are Internet noobs that ".com" is the Internet.

1) By purchasing a domain name through ICANN, the RonPaul.com owner voluntarily submitted himself to the ICANN dispute resolution process.
2) The ICANN dispute resolution process may be part of the U.N. but that's besides the point.
3) Ron Paul is just following that process.

Okay. So any time a international government agency takes on monopoly powers and a businessman "voluntarily submits" to those powers, it's still within libertarian principles to go to that international government agency to "exercise my rights" under those powers and I'll pretend I'm not actually doing that because the person "volunteered" to the process? WTF?

Israel is wrong that Ron Paul is doing the only thing he can legally do.

Ron could agree to purchase the domain from Tim. Ron could then send Tim a check or even gold.

Settling the matter privately is certainly an option. Ron is not required to ask for ICANN to intervene.

Right, Ron could buy it for $250,000 or he could take the better deal of the free ronpaul.org offer and put his site on it and all this could be avoided. Ron most certainly is not doing the only thing he could do, he is doing something that in my opinion seems totally out of character for him.

If these aren't examples of a "free market" please explain your understanding of the term and why domains are excluded.

Sedo - The world's leading domain marketplaceAfternic boasts over 3 million domain names available for purchase on their aftermarket platform. Bido is a 1 a day, domain name auction serviceDomainMonkey is a domain auction and parking website NameJet allows its customers to backorder a domain name and set a price up to which they are willing to go

My understanding is this one body has a monopoly and you take a domain subject to its precise rules of how you can use it, which rules Ron is claiming under. However, he tried to buy it first at what he thought was market value. Now it is for sale on whosis and if someone else buys it do you really think the value they pay above what Ron would would be based on the site as used to date? Or would it be based on Ron's fame and potential, the precise type of thing not allowed by the domain rules the site owner took it subject to?

However, while domains seem to be nauseatingly UN free market, that doesn't prevent the two sides from voluntarily negotiating a result to settle it and I really hope they do.

"Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear.” -Ron Paul

"Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

Right, Ron could buy it for $250,000 or he could take the better deal of the free ronpaul.org offer and put his site on it and all this could be avoided. Ron most certainly is not doing the only thing he could do, he is doing something that in my opinion seems totally out of character for him.

It does seem out of character but I don't know all of what happened in negotiations either. But I hope they sides can work out a settlement.

"Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear.” -Ron Paul

"Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

If the sake of America's future depends upon ownership of a domain name, it is time to start looking outside of the United States regarding the whereabouts of the next advancement of the social contract.

If the sake of America's future depends upon ownership of a domain name, it is time to start looking outside of the United States regarding the whereabouts of the next advancement of the social contract.

You know that is not true. This is an important topic here because we are all Ron Paul supporters, at least most of us are, this is ronpaulforums.com after all. No one is saying the future of the USA depends on the resolution of this matter.

You know that is not true. This is an important topic here because we are all Ron Paul supporters, at least most of us are, this is ronpaulforums.com after all. No one is saying the future of the USA depends on the resolution of this matter.

The only way to crush the bones of the enemy that is endangering the United States today is by laying down a foundation of philosophy. This would be the American Movement! Get your minds off the stupid two party system! The two party system wasn't the advancement over the U.S. Constitution! It was the American Movement led by the American transcendentalists later on who saved the Union by returning the people to revering our Founders, to cherishing the new order they declared within The Declaration of Independence, and to honor the laws instituted within the U.S. Constitution they established to further advance that new order!

Right, Ron could buy it for $250,000 or he could take the better deal of the free ronpaul.org offer and put his site on it and all this could be avoided. Ron most certainly is not doing the only thing he could do, he is doing something that in my opinion seems totally out of character for him.

I suspect that it is people that work for Ron that are behind this. Maybe this is being used as leverage to negotiate a better price. Who knows? If Ron wants the domain that badly I don't see why he doesn't just pay its current market value, even though he can force an ICANN arbitration.

U.S. Air Force Veteran
@cleaner4d4

I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.

I would like to see the agreement that Ron Paul signed when the .org was in his control. I wonder if it contains the same clause that the current agreements do, which state that failure to pay for the site shall be construed as consent to transfer the site to new ownership.

.

"Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won."

Domain names aren't property to be owned, people. They're rented out and the landlord has certain rules. Who here thinks it's a violation of private property rights for an apartment manager to prohibit smoking? Well, the landlord renting out ronpaul.com says you can't take someone else's name and profit from it.

ICANN is a private entity which regulates these matters. When you register a domain, you are submitting yourself to their process and in the event of a dispute one must follow UDRP policy. This policy dictates that when there is a domain dispute, it can only be heard by a number of arbitration providers. That the owners of the domain are Australian means Paul is obliged to go to WIPO. There is no other choice. People saying he could instead pay the guys money miss the point: if someone came to your home and took your car, would you then pay money for it back? Paul believes he owns his trademark, so of course he is going to try to get it back. That he initially even asked how much they wanted shows he was willing to give something, but the RonPaul.com guys asked first for ~$850,000 and then lowered it to $250,000.

The fact that WIPO was a UN created agency is incidental here. The whole issue is a private/arbitration matter. When people sign contracts often there'll be arbitration clauses that illustrate what should happen if there is a dispute. These proceedings are quicker and cheaper than courts. They're legal and it is a part of the free market that one can submit themselves to arbitration. Now, this doesn't impinge on the sovereignty of the courts (which would have been a legitimate gripe) because the matter can be appealed to the courts.

WIPO is used because it predates ICANN and was an international IP forum that was in existence and already trusted. That ICANN uses it is incidental - it could use another private arbitration provider if it really wanted to. The UN has no power and thus the things Paul would ideologically oppose aren't in issue here.

Furthermore, for those that think the RonPaul.com guys are just exercising their free market rights: wrong. Paul is arguing that he has a common law trademark of which the owners of the domain have used to unjustly enrich themselves. This is akin to theft, if proven. The free market does not protect theft or fraud. Paul does not want their site - they can keep it, their email list, and register another domain and be up in business in a few hours. And that is the telling part: the RonPaul.com guys KNOWINGLY used a name that is inarguably connected to the real Ron Paul. The only reason that site can generate anything is because of Ron Paul and all the efforts he has gone to throughout the years to spread his message - by books, interviews, etc.

The fact that they've profited at all from that site for this many years is enough - as Paul can actually ask for not only the domain but compensation for their using his trademark through all this time. They post news that will garner hits and get money from adsense and they also sell Ron Paul merchandise. Has Paul asked for a cut, even, there? No; he just wants the domain.